Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Re: J. Chance / Tolkien Encyclopedia

Expand Messages
  • Wayne G. Hammond
    Please forgive the omnibus reply, I m trying to catch up: ... It s my understanding that a number of scholars were approached to be the general editor, before
    Message 1 of 57 , Dec 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Please forgive the omnibus reply, I'm trying to catch up:

      Jason wrote:

      >This may or may not be common knowledge, but Routledge originally
      >approached Jane Chance to be the editor of the Tolkien Encyclopedia.
      >She declined the offer, and Routledge then approached Mike Drout.

      It's my understanding that a number of scholars were approached to be the
      general editor, before Mike accepted the very onerous task. He deserves a
      lot of credit for taking it on.

      ajkjr1 wrote:

      >I have several (all) of her books and she is quite knowledgable and
      >makes some very good points but I just think she comes off as doing
      >this as a way to make a living which bugs me a bit. I just did not
      >think she has the passion for Tolkien like Shippey, Wayne & Christina,
      >Doug Anderson, Michael Drout and Mike Foster to name a few.

      I too have some disagreements with Jane's books, but I've never felt that
      she lacked passion for Tolkien.

      Merlin wrote:

      >I recall hearing grumbling about the subject of limited access to
      >archives from more than one questioner at Marquette, generally
      >answered by Wayne Hammond in the conference's last Q&A. If Chance,
      >an established professional, is not getting access to, say, Bodleian
      >materials that others are allowed to use -- and I don't know if this
      >is true -- then she has a right to feel jealous, no?

      As an established academic, Jane surely would have no problem getting a
      reader's ticket to the Bodleian, and access at least to the unrestricted
      Tolkien papers, which cover a lot of ground. Access, however, doesn't
      guarantee permission to publish manuscripts and archives, and that has been
      the biggest (if largely unwarranted) complaint that I've heard.

      Carl wrote:

      >Am I the only one uncomfortable at all the personal comments about Dr.
      >Chance being made
      >on this publicly accessible, permanently archived list? If people want to
      >share their opinions
      >about Dr. Chance's personality or foibles, wouldn't it be best to that
      >privately, and use this
      >public forum instead for discussion or criticism of her work instead?

      Well said.

      Jason later wrote:

      >Sure, tough questions may well be appropriate -- but I think it depends on
      >the conference. More appropriate for Kalamazoo, maybe, than for Marquette
      >/ Blackwelder, which felt more like a festschrift than the forum for
      >academic debate to me.

      I myself don't recall being bothered by Jane's questioning of Mike Drout,
      until it became clear that no agreement between questioner and speaker was
      going to be possible. Jane also threw a couple of hard questions at me, but
      that comes with the territory. The Marquette conference was meant to be,
      and was, a serious gathering of scholars, in which disputation is perfectly
      legitimate -- always, of course, within the bounds of courtesy.

      Wayne Hammond


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Diane Joy Baker
      Well said; I ve little love for PoMo. Off topic, anyway, and I prefer to discuss lit crit and literature I *like.* ---djb ... From: Jason Fisher To:
      Message 57 of 57 , Dec 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Well said; I've little love for PoMo. Off topic, anyway, and I prefer to discuss lit crit and literature I *like.* ---djb

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Jason Fisher
        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:57 AM
        Subject: [mythsoc] Re: J. Chance / Tolkien Encyclopedia


        --- William Cloud Hicklin wrote:
        > The basic procedure for PoMo critical analysis:
        >
        > Step 1) Find something in the text which might be vaguely
        > political
        > Step 2) Construct thereon a "political viewpoint" for the work
        > Step 3) Attack the author's politics
        >
        > Extra credit if the politics marginalize a recognized victim
        > group.
        >
        > Double extra credit if the "political viewpoint" is wildly
        > anachronistic.

        LOL, nicely done. I smell a new Foucault/Derrida drinking game in the offing. :)

        (This is verging on going off-topic, if it hasn't already, but I had to comment.)

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/568 - Release Date: 12/4/2006


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.